LDS and Islam beginnings

[OnlyAmbrose]

Through the years, new editions of the Mormon books have been issued, some with marked differences from earlier editions. Has this also happened with the Koran?

The Qur’an was for some time after Muhammad’s death a spoken work. People would memorize Muhammad’s revelation and it was passed down from there. The written, “canonized” Qur’an that we know today came together under Uthman, the third of the “rightly guided” Caliphs, or essentially third in line in succession after Muhammad. There is virtually no way in knowing how true this is to the original revelation, but the text has remained (for all intents and purposes) identical to the text which was canonized under Uthman.

The reason why, in the Quran (or what Muhammed said that they say was Allah’s word), that they hate us is due to the Jews and Christians corrupting the Bible. So, the Quran must never change.

Please. Hostile generalizations such as “they hate us” are not constructive at all , and a social study of Islamic rule would show that it’s simply not a generalization which you can make.

And if one reads it one will find out that the source of Islamic violence, hatred and intolerance worldwide comes from that Quran.

Every religion, Christianity included, has some practicioners who use words from their scriptures to justify hatred, violence, and intolerance. On the other hand, every religion, Islam included, has many practicioners (usually more than the other category) who use words from their scriptures to justify tolerance and peace. You will find that, if read without context, references to dhimma in the Qur’an are by no means consistent. The interesting historical context behind each Sura reveals some interesting thoughts as to the motivation and meaning of the words.

Keep in mind it is we who want it changed - not them. It is we who label and categorize Muslims into peaceful, mainstream, moderate, radical, terrorist, etc - not them.

Of course they don’t want it changed. Would you want someone to just re-write the Old Testament to make it more politically correct for 21st century readers?

 

[Finrock]

Good evening PaulDupre! I hope you’ve been doing well.

Mormonism also claims that Christians changed or corrupted the scriptures. That is why they give only lip-service to the bible, while stressing Joseph Smith’s “more correct” writings.

Actually, Mormons take the sensible approach of believing in the Bible insofar as it has been translated correctly, but this doesn’t mean we don’t revere the Bible. We do. We study the scriptures in Sunday school on a rotational basis. One year we study the Book of Mormon in Sunday school, the next year the D&C and the Pearl of Great Price, another year we study the Old Testament, and another year the New Testament. We then start the cycle over again. The Church is an “equal opportunity” scripture advocator . This year we are studying the Doctrine and Covenants. None of this includes personal scripture study, which each person can do as they wish.

The Bible is an important part of our religion. It is full of our doctrine, just as the rest of our scriptures are. We pay a lot more than just lip service to the Bible.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[MelanieAnne]

Good evening PaulDupre! I hope you’ve been doing well.

Actually, Mormons take the sensible approach of believing in the Bible insofar as it has been translated correctly, but this doesn’t mean we don’t revere the Bible. We do. We study the scriptures in Sunday school on a rotational basis. One year we study the Book of Mormon in Sunday school, the next year the D&C and the Pearl of Great Price, another year we study the Old Testament, and another year the New Testament. We then start the cycle over again. The Church is an “equal opportunity” scripture advocator . This year we are studying the Doctrine and Covenants. None of this includes personal scripture study, which each person can do as they wish.

The Bible is an important part of our religion. It is full of our doctrine, just as the rest of our scriptures are. We pay a lot more than just lip service to the Bible.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

Hi Finrock,

I trust that you understand that no matter how politely you state it, when you say things such as “Mormons take the sensible approach of believing in the Bible insofar as it has been translated correctly” you are slapping some people in the face.

First, you are saying that if people do not believe as you do, they are not sensible, that only Mormons are sensible.

Next, please remember that the Bible was originally compiled by the Catholic Church, so all these allegations of error are a direct slam on the Catholic Church. However, there is absolutely no evidence, apart from the self-serving testimony of Joseph Smith as he was busily creating his own sect, that there is any truthfulness to these assertions of inaccuracies.

Yet Mormons routinely make these assertions without a shred of evidence to support them. No matter how prettily worded, an insult is still an insult and in this case it is a grave insult.

Also, Finrock, Paul is an ex-Mormon. He doesn’t need an explanation of the Sunday School schedule. If he says that his experience is that Mormons subordinate the Bible to the Book of Mormon and other Mormon texts, then that’s his experience. It’s hardly arguable by someone that hasn’t lived his life.

 

[SkinnyJay]

Actually, Mormons take the sensible approach of believing in the Bible insofar as it has been translated correctly,

Insofar? so some things are correct and some not? Half-correct, half-not? Which teachings and how do you tell? Not very sensible to me.

but this doesn’t mean we don’t revere the Bible. We do. We study the scriptures in Sunday school on a rotational basis. One year we study the Book of Mormon in Sunday school, the next year the D&C and the Pearl of Great Price, another year we study the Old Testament, and another year the New Testament. We then start the cycle over again. The Church is an “equal opportunity” scripture advocator . This year we are studying the Doctrine and Covenants. None of this includes personal scripture study, which each person can do as they wish.

The Bible is an important part of our religion. It is full of our doctrine, just as the rest of our scriptures are. We pay a lot more than just lip service to the Bible.

I think you should spend another year studying the Bible. Where it came from and how it got here. I am not talking “Hey you crazy Mormons listen to us Catholics we brought you the Bible” I am saying study how the Bible is translated, who translates, the difficulties in translating, which manuscripts do the translators use, why did they choose those ones, how finds such as the scrolls at Qumran impact the Bible, the differences behind translations already out and why they are so etc… I am just saying this is a huge field and much deliberation and thought has gone into it from inside and outside strictly religious spheres. Ignoring teachings in the Bible because they don’t mesh with your thoughts? Is the Bible authoritative or not? Dangerous game to be playing when only some teachings apply while others not.

What you are saying in waiting for a perfect translation is ignorant. In translating one needs the intent behind the words, not just the words themselves, as meanings can be lost in translating to another language. So if you really believe that the Bible is an authoritative text just not translated right, go learn Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Read our oldest manuscripts in their original language.

The reason most Christians say Mormons just give “lip service” to the Bible is because the Bible and the Book of Mormon are not weighted the same in the hearts of Mormons. How could they as there are numerous contradictions in teachings between them. Mormons view the Bible through the lens of their BoM. The BoM is more true and in cases of contradiction the Bible is shaded over with the BoM lens. Instead of trying to interpret what the author was saying for that time, that culture, Mormons will read the text of a Bible as if the author had a BoM sitting right there in front of them and expected their readers to have the same. The text meaning what was written or writing one thing that means something but actually means something different (as long as that is in correlation with the BoM.) Following?

A Church is necessary to guide a Faith. A Faith needs authority, a one-ness, being whole, like Christ. I believe each Faith, Catholicism and LDS, are using a lens to help interpret scripture. One is the tradition of a Church founded 2,000 years ago in Christ, with Christ, while the other is the tradition of a book that has a questionable origin.

 

[Finrock]

Good evening MelanieAnne. I hope you’ve been well today!

Hi Finrock,

I trust that you understand that no matter how politely you state it, when you say things such as “Mormons take the sensible approach of believing in the Bible insofar as it has been translated correctly” you are slapping some people in the face.

First, you are saying that if people do not believe as you do, they are not sensible, that only Mormons are sensible.

I can see what you are saying, although logically speaking my statement doesn’t have the implied conclusion you provide. I do see how there could be misunderstanding in the wording, however. So to clarify, my intent was not to say that anyone who doesn’t believe what I say isn’t sensible. Rather, my intent was to say that it is sensible to believe in a Bible that is translated correctly, and this is the approach that Mormons take.

Let me give an example to illustrate this: There are many translations of the Bible. Many people do not believe the Jehovah’s Witness translation of the Bible. They do not believe it, because they do not believe that it is translated correctly. Therefore, they are subscribing to the rationality that to believe in a mistranslated Bible isn’t sensible.

Also, sensible and insensibility aren’t relative concepts. Meaning, if it is sensible to only believe in a Bible that is translated correctly, then it is sensible regardless of circumstance. What constitutes a correct translation is up for debate, but everyone ought to agree that believing in a mistranslated Bible is not sensible.

Next, please remember that the Bible was originally compiled by the Catholic Church, so all these allegations of error are a direct slam on the Catholic Church. However, there is absolutely no evidence, apart from the self-serving testimony of Joseph Smith as he was busily creating his own sect, that there is any truthfulness to these assertions of inaccuracies.

Yet Mormons routinely make these assertions without a shred of evidence to support them. No matter how prettily worded, an insult is still an insult and in this case it is a grave insult.

I do remember that the current canon of scripture was largely compiled by the Catholic church.

Although my post was less about errors in scripture but instead more about giving accurate information as to what Mormons believe, I will address your point to the extent of stating that most scholars agree that the Bible is not innerrant. There are hundreds of various translations of the Bible and not all of the translations agree with each other. Therefore, it is impossible for there to not be at least one translation that is in error.

Also, Finrock, Paul is an ex-Mormon. He doesn’t need an explanation of the Sunday School schedule. If he says that his experience is that Mormons subordinate the Bible to the Book of Mormon and other Mormon texts, then that’s his experience. It’s hardly arguable by someone that hasn’t lived his life.

My intent in posting was not because I was under the impression that Paul needed an explanation of Sunday School schedule. Rather it was to correct a factual error. Also, Paul’s religious affiliation is irrelevant to the truth value of his statements. I have no need to live Paul’s life to respond to his post because Paul’s assertion was to a class (all Mormons only give lipservice) , not to personal experiences (in my experience, the Mormons I knew only gave lipservice).

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[GodIsGracious]

I can see what you are saying, although logically speaking my statement doesn’t have the implied conclusion you provide.

Ooh, I love logic. Your assertions are not correct. To say that anyone group takes a sensible approach DOES imply that others do not.

“Group A takes a sensible approach in X.” Excludes Groups B, C, etc.

 

[planten]

The reason why, in the Quran (or what Muhammed said that they say was Allah’s word), that they hate us is due to the Jews and Christians corrupting the Bible. So, the Quran must never change.

There is no hatred in Islam for any peaceful person of any faith. But Quran tells us that Jews were cursed at the tongue of king David and Jesus. That means king David cursed the Jews and so did Jesus. Is that true??

I hope you understand the meaning of curse. There were no christians at the time of Jesus otherwise we would have had some news about them too.

And if one reads it one will find out that the source of Islamic violence, hatred and intolerance worldwide comes from that Quran. And this is why things won’t change

.

There is no voilence in Quran. But it is the present day Muslim clergy who are reading it as such. And the christians are supporting them that the muslim teachers are right. But they are not right. There are well educated understanding Muslim people too who disagree with the false ideas of the Muslim clergy i.e bigots.

There was talk of rewriting the Quran, but who would it be for? For us? It still wouldn’t change for the Muslims worldwide and the only ones who would have this changed Quran would be us and we would be the ones who would be ignorant of what the Muslims have.

It would be a useless effort to rewrite the Quran. Now there are billion Quran in nearly every important language of the world. Why don’t you rewrite your own religious book? that will also be useless work. .

SOmeone mentioned a Furqan, but I don’t know anything about that. Maybe someone else can give some info on that. I don’t think it is a book from a Muslim source so it would probably be rejected by Muslims on a whole.

Keep in mind it is we who want it changed - not them. It is we who label and categorize Muslims into peaceful, mainstream, moderate, radical, terrorist, etc - not them.

You have realised the futility of that effort. You are still hoping against hopelessness. So we need not say anything more about.that.

OnlyAmbrose has given a good reply post on this subject.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Good evening MelanieAnne. I hope you’ve been well today!

I can see what you are saying, although logically speaking my statement doesn’t have the implied conclusion you provide. I do see how there could be misunderstanding in the wording, however. So to clarify, my intent was not to say that anyone who doesn’t believe what I say isn’t sensible. Rather, my intent was to say that it is sensible to believe in a Bible that is translated correctly, and this is the approach that Mormons take.

There you go again! Now if someone has the reaction I stated they’re illogical. The insults just keep piling on! So your words may be kind and gracious and at the same time amazingly insulting and you appear to be absolutely clueless about it because otherwise it would be downright pathological.

Is there a Mormon Sunday School class that teaches this behavior Finrock? Because I think this is a good example of the “passive-aggressive” behavior Rebecca has occasionally referenced.

Let me give an example to illustrate this: There are many translations of the Bible. Many people do not believe the Jehovah’s Witness translation of the Bible. They do not believe it, because they do not believe that it is translated correctly. Therefore, they are subscribing to the rationality that to believe in a mistranslated Bible isn’t sensible.

Also, sensible and insensibility aren’t relative concepts. Meaning, if it is sensible to only believe in a Bible that is translated correctly, then it is sensible regardless of circumstance. What constitutes a correct translation is up for debate, but everyone ought to agree that believing in a mistranslated Bible is not sensible.

Finrock, you need to study the difference between interpretation and translation because it is clear that you are not distinguishing between the two and yet the difference is vast. Anyone without proper understanding of context, can misinterpret a passage of scripture and get it wrong. The flaw in understanding rests with the person who misinterprets the passage, not with the substance of the passage itself.

You also need to study the difference between inaccuracy and interpretation. A lot of Mormons, because of their missionary work, are bilingual, so this should not be entirely unfamiliar. Anyone that has studied another language can appreciate the occasional difficulty in translating from one language to another. It’s not that a translation may be incorrect so much as it can sometimes be a challenge to precisely translate something word for word from one language to another. This is why Bible scholars study the texts in the original language, to understand the fullness of the meaning.

None of this applies to Joseph Smith, who merely picked out certain passages in the King James version of the Bible (i.e. an incomplete Protestant version) and then tinkered with them to support the theology of his new sect. It had nothing to do with going back and reviewing the original manuscripts and correcting earlier interpretations or translations, it was merely an effort to change the Bible into his new view. There is not a shred of evidence to support this practice except Smith’s own self-serving statement.

Your insults to the Catholic faith continue to pile up. It’s extremely offensive.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Actually, Mormons take the sensible approach of believing in the Bible insofar as it has been translated correctly, but this doesn’t mean we don’t revere the Bible.

Still waiting for that list of where the Bible has not been translated incorrectly, and for each part, what exactly it has to do with mormon doctrine.

 

[Toribus]

There is no hatred in Islam for any peaceful person of any faith.

According to whom?

But Quran tells us that Jews were cursed at the tongue of king David and Jesus. That means king David cursed the Jews and so did Jesus. Is that true?? I hope you understand the meaning of curse. There were no christians at the time of Jesus otherwise we would have had some news about them too.

It is not true for two reasons. The first is that it contradicts the inspired Word of God (the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament). The second is that it draws a false testimony as its authority, namely the Quran, which is nothing more than the invention of a heresiarch.

There is no voilence in Quran. But it is the present day Muslim clergy who are reading it as such. And the christians are supporting them that the muslim teachers are right. But they are not right. There are well educated understanding Muslim people too who disagree with the false ideas of the Muslim clergy i.e bigots.

This is a lie within a lie. Anyone who can read Arabic is able to give a lengthy list of the violent commands from “allah” in the Quran, and claims from Muslims that the Quran is a book of peace are either ignorant or deliberately misleading. The enfolding lie is that only “[uneducated] bigots” promote the inherent violence of Islam, and that the “educated moderates” are the true Muslims.

The fact is, if Islam truly holds Mohammed (may almighty God have mercy on his soul) to be the perfect specimen of virtue, worthy of all imitation, then these clerics are doing exactly as he did. They are more faithful to the consistent practice and belief of Islam, as well as the example of its prophet.

It would be a useless effort to rewrite the Quran. Now there are billion Quran in nearly every important language of the world. Why don’t you rewrite your own religious book? that will also be useless work.

And it is in all these translations that we can see the violence and hatred made sacred by Mohammed (may almighty God have mercy on his soul), yes? Or are the translations misleading as well, a way to convert the unbeliever with lies?

You have realised the futility of that effort. You are still hoping against hopelessness. So we need not say anything more about.that.

So you admit plainly the warmongering, injustice and wickedness demanded by Islam?

OnlyAmbrose has given a good reply post on this subject.

I agree with OnlyAmbrose that there is no point “changing” the Quran. The only solution is the one that we have failed in completing for over a thousand years, and that is its complete obliteration. Bring on the final Crusade.

 

[MelanieAnne]

We have been told that in Islam “jihad” is not warfare against others, it is the personal struggle of the faithful within themselves. Similarly, a “crusade” need not involve warfare. What we need to do is simply stop buying the products produced by terrorist countries or countries that support terrorism. ALL OF THEM. Starting with oil. And we need to stop *selling/I] to them too. Let the Saudi’s see how well food grows in sand.

We made a mistake decades ago, when OPEC was formed, not to found OWEC at the same time (the Organization of Wheat Exporting Countries.) Had we done so, OPEC would have fallen apart immediately, we would not have enriched feudal dictators to the point where they could afford to support terrorism & export it around the world and as a result its likely none of the current belligerence would have evolved. We didn’t do it then, but that doesn’t mean we can’t strive to get to that point now. We need to achieve energy independence by any means necessary as fast as we can. And stop selling anything to terrorists and those who support them.

Without the revenue and material to support them, all of these terrorist enterprises would collapse. And the countries that depend on us for food exports would rapidly root out the terrorists in their midst, and cease to support terrorism, if the price to support terrorism was their own starvation. I’m sure it would never get to the point where people were actually starving, but the possibility of extinction does tend to focus the mind.*

 

[OnlyAmbrose]

It is not true for two reasons. The first is that it contradicts the inspired Word of God (the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament). The second is that it draws a false testimony as its authority, namely the Quran, which is nothing more than the invention of a heresiarch.

That’s not really constructive to the debate. Obviously a Muslim will disagree that the OT and the NT as we have them are inerrant. Just as obviously a Muslim would disagree that the Qur’an is “false testimony.” Proving the inerrancy of the Christian Bible vs that of the Qur’an seems to be the next logical step in this discussion.

This is a lie within a lie. Anyone who can read Arabic is able to give a lengthy list of the violent commands from “allah” in the Quran, and claims from Muslims that the Quran is a book of peace are either ignorant or deliberately misleading.

I do agree with this to some extent. Islam is an “Arab” religion in its origins, and I think the Qur’an draws considerable influence from its region of origin. Jahili Arabia was a fairly violent place - the pagan (and Jewish) tribes fought each other and formed systems of alliances on a regular basis. Raids for resources and camels were commonplace. War was not looked upon as immoral by any means.

The historical beginnings of Islam (even as recounted by early Muslim historians) show that it did follow this trend. The extermination of the Jews of Medina is perfect evidence of this. Regardless of the reasons for Muhammad’s slaughter of these Jews (I am fully convinced that it was politically rather than religiously motivated - I do NOT believe that Islam is inherently antisemitic), the fact remains that this brutal desert justice was given divine sanction in that it was ordered by Muhammad who cited divine revelation for justification.

Nonetheless, a few things should certainly be noted before Islam is branded as an inherently violent religion (it’s not). First of all, forced conversion is not only frowned upon in the Qur’an, it is surprisingly absent from the vast majority of Muslim history. This is due to a variety of factors (that the jizya, or poll tax on nonbelievers, was a vital source of income for the early Muslim empire is not the least of among these), but the ultimate result is that Islam actually proved to be far more tolerant of religious minorities than other (Christian) empires of their day.

It should also be noted that Muhammad did not buy into all of jahili culture. He banned the practice of infanticide, which Muslim scholars state was an occurrence of alarming regularity before the rise of Islam (though secular scholars disagree on how often this practice occurred).

So you admit plainly the warmongering, injustice and wickedness demanded by Islam?

That depends on your historical and theological opinions regarding the Qur’an. Either way, it is clear that the majority of Muslims do not interpret it as such.

I agree with OnlyAmbrose that there is no point “changing” the Quran. The only solution is the one that we have failed in completing for over a thousand years, and that is its complete obliteration. Bring on the final Crusade.

Please forgive me, but I am ENTIRELY opposed to having my name attached to an argument advocating a Crusade.

 

[Finrock]

Good evening GodIsGracious! I hope you are doing well.

Ooh, I love logic. Your assertions are not correct. To say that anyone group takes a sensible approach DOES imply that others do not.

“Group A takes a sensible approach in X.” Excludes Groups B, C, etc.

I’m sorry GodIsGracious, but you’re simply mistaken. Your example is a categorical statement which as the following logical form:

All A are X

“All A are X” makes no claims whatsoever to B, C, D, etc.

To show this consider the following statement:

“All monkeys are mammals”

If we apply logic espoused in your statements, then all other animals are now excluded from being “mammals”. Obviously we know that isn’t true. We know all sorts of species are mammals.

On the other hand, if one were to make the statement, “Only monkeys are mammals” then this* would *exclude any other class from being mammals. In my case, I made no claim that only Mormons take the sensible approach.

Anyways, thanks for the short discussion in logic.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[North_of_Nod]

As for the Bible being translated correctly, did the Dead Sea Scrolls not prove its accuracy? I think the purity rate was 99.5%, with the remaining .5% being just stylistic differences that did not have any bearing on the meaning whatsoever. The DSC were dated to have been written long before the birth of Christ, so we know the Old Testament is accurate. That’s just my two cents.

God bless.